No such action

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

The action specified by the URL is not recognized by the wiki

Return to Main Page.

basicallyblues wrote:

>
> >You are simply out of league. You do not understand the issue being
> >debated.
>
> Your arrogance is almost sociopathic. I understand the issue much
more
> than you.
>
Yet again you provide no reply to the point. Just more character
assignation.
>
> > God has no needs. He created out of love- not need. His first
> creation
> > (the archangel Michael who later became Jesus)
>
> >"Chapter and verse please," to quote a previous JfW poster.
>
> I'll do this out of courtesy as your arrogance is annoying.
>
> Rev. 3:14

Rev. 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The
Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of
God, says this:

??? The angel of the church is being requested to write what Jesus is
stating. How can you confuse this. Jesus is the One doing the talking
as developed in Chapter one. Next.
> Col. 1:15

Col. 1:15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of
all creation.

Ummm, unless my eyes are failing me, I don't see any mention of
Michael.

BTW, the context is the first to be reborn. First born from the dead.
In resurrection He will be the first born among many brethren, which is
the Church, His body.
>
> Prov. 8:22
>
Prov. 8:22 "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before
His works of old.
>
> John 6:57
>
John 6:57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the
Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me.
>
NONE of these passages have explicit statements concerning the point.
You are making an implicit case and as already noted, you do not allow
for such things.
>
> Jesus as Michael:
>
SNP
>
> Jehovah's Witnesses hold that the archangel Michael is

Yes, we've been over this a hundred times before. My primary field of
study in theology was angelology. All that you present simply does not
conform to sound hermeneutical principles. You have bantered about the
term "eisegesis" and yet you seem to be blind of its application to
what you have done here. To reach your conclusion using these
passages, you must first hold the presuppostion that Jesus=Michael.
Exegetically one does not arrive at such a conclusion. Search Google,
we've been over this ad nauseam.
>
> >Then how can you have his very nature be "love?" You yourself have
> >just admitted to it being inexpressible until creation.
>
> Jehovah had no needs and no limitations other than those who places
> upon himself. I said his first *act* of love was the creation of his
> Son.
>
No. You do not understand. Act does not determine being. And though
I dare to take opposition with your statement, God most certainly does
have limitations. His limitations are His very nature. Being by
nature righteous and holy, He cannot ignore sin and rebellion. Being
by nature, truth, He cannot lie. etc. So God does have limitations.
He cannot create that which does not relate to who He is essentually.
He has to be true to Himself.

Again, love requires a source and an object. The whole of scripture
speaks against self-love and yet that is all you are left with as a
basis for love.

Again, you do not perceive the depth of the issue. I do not state that
in a superior fashion. Humbly, your replies continue to evidence that
you have not grasped the gravity of the question.
>
> >gain, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You have not
studied
> >such things. You have not pursued the deeper things -your
> >presuppositions and their natural children.
>
> Here's more condescening palaver. I understand and ponder the truth-
> which is deeper than your manmade philosophical trinity.
>
It is not condescending and was never so inferred. The sky is blue is
not a condesecending conclusion but rather an observation. There are a
great many things I too have not studied or even considered. But I
don't threatened nor belittled when that revelation comes to me.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))